2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-4-2005 

# Ab dul-M ali k v

. W a shingt on M

utl P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3991

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Abdul -M al i k v

. W ashin gt on M

utl " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 737. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/737CP S - 2 9 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

________________ N o. 04- 3991

________________ I N R E : S AL I M AB DUL - M AL I K, D ebt or S AL I M AB DUL - M AL I K,

A ppel l ant v. WAS HI NGT ON MUTUA L S E RV I CI NG

________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02623) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J oel A . Pi s ano

________________ S u b m itted F o r P o ssible S u m m aryA cti o n U n d er T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J une 30, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M C K E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2005)

________________ OP I NI ON

________________ P E R C UR I AM Sal i m A bdul - M al i k appea l s fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or deraff i r m i ng theA bdul - M al i k i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe A ubur n C orr ect i onal Faci l i t y , N ew 1 Y or k. H e has been i ncar cer at ed s i nce thi s cas e comm ence d. 2 B ankrupt cyC our t ’ s or dert hatdeni ed hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. Forthe fol l ow i ng 1 r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s the ca s e forl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n . I n J une 2002, A bdul - M al i k fi l ed a vol unt arypet i t i on underC hapt er7 of the B a n k ru p tc yC o d e in th e U n ite d S ta te s B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt f o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y . W as hi ngt on M utual Ser vi ci ng forL ong B eac h M or t gage Com panyfi l ed a mot i on for rel i ef from t he au t om at i c st ayi n o rdert o co m m ence f orecl osure proceed i ng s agai nst A b d u l-M a lik ’s r e a l p ro p e rty ; th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt g ra n ted th e m o tio n . S h o rtly ther eaf t er , t he B ankrupt cyC our tgr ant ed A bdul - M al i k’ s m ot i on t o convertthe ca s e t o a C h a p ter 1 3 c a se . In Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , A b d u l-M a lik f iled a m o tio n to v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss h is c a s e ; th e m o tio n w a s g ra n te d . I n N ovember2003, A bdul - M al i k fi l ed a mot i on t o r ei ns t at e hi s C hapt er13 pet i t i on a n d to v a c a te th e o rd e r d ism iss in g h is c a se . T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n in an or derent er ed February5, 2004, and A bdul - M al i k fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on on February24, 2004. T he mot i on forr econs i der at i on w as deni ed on M ar ch 25, 2004, and h e f il ed a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l on A p ri l 19 , 2 0 0 4 . O n S ep tem b er 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rt a f f ir m e d th e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt ’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . A ppeal s fr om t he B ankrupt cyC our tm us tbe br oughti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t“i n the t i m e pr ovi ded byR ul e 8002 of the B ankrupt cyR ul es . ” 28 U . S. C . § 158( c) ( 2) . Pur s uant3

t o R ul e 8002, an appe al m us tbe fi l ed w i t hi n 10 day s of the entr yof the or der . T he 10- d a ylim it is b o th m a n d a to ry a n d ju ri s d ic tio n a l. S e e S h a re h o ld e rs v . S o u n d R a d io , In c ., 109 F. 3d 873, 879 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . C ert ai n m ot i ons w i l l t ol l the t i m e t o fi l e an a ppeal , but th e m o tio n m u s t b e f

ile d w ith in th e tim e p e ri o d p re s c ri b e d b yF e d . R . B a n k r. P . 8 0 0 2 (b ). T h e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt e n ter e d its o rd e r d e n y in g A b d u l-M a lik ’s m o tio n to re in sta te on F ebruary5, 20 04 . H i s m oti on for r econ si derat i on app ears t o h ave b een ti m el ybecau se it w a s d a te d F e b ru a ry 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 . S e e H o u s to n v . L a c k , 4 8 7 U .S . 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 (1 9 8 8 ). R eg ard less o f w h ethe r A b d u l- M ali k inten d ed h is m o ti o n to b e f il ed u n d er F ed . R . B an k r. P. 9023 or9024, hi s m ot i on t ol l ed the t i m e t o appea l the February5, 2004 or der , s ee Fed. R . B ankr . P. 8002( b) ; t hati s , hi s not i ce of appea l w as due w i t hi n 10 day s aft erentr yof th e o rd e r d is p o s in g o f

h is m o tio n . O n M a rc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , the B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt e n ter e d its o rd e r d e n y in g A b d u lM a lik ’s m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n . H e f ile d h is n o tic e o f

a p p e a l o n A p ri l 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 . A bdul - M al i k ar gues t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o t he bene fi t s of H ous t on, w hi ch hel d t hata pro se pr i s oner ’ s not i ce of

appea l i s cons i der ed fi l ed atthe mom enti ti s del i ver ed t o pr i s on author i t i es form ai l i ng. A l t hough A bdul - M al i k m ayi nvoke H ous t on, as he has been i ncar cer at ed s i nce thi s m att ercomm ence d, hi s not i ce of appea l w as unt i m el y . A s he conce des , t he mot i on w as del i ver ed t o pr i s on author i t i es on A pr i l 10, 2004, m or e than 10 d ay s af ter en tryo f th e M arc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 o rde r. S ee R ash id v . U n it ed S tat es (In re R ash id), 210 F. 3d 201, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . B eca us e A bdul - M al i k fi l ed hi s not i ce of appea l t o the D i s tr i ctC our tm or e than 10 day s aft erthe B ankrupt cyC our tent er ed j udgm ent , the4

D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overhi s unt i m el yappea l . A ccor di ngl y , nei t herthe D i s tr i ctC our tnort hi s C our tcan c ons i derthe mer i t s of hi s appea l . C al cas i eu M ar i ne N at ’ l B ank v. M or r el l ( I n r e M or r el l ) , 880 F. 2d 855, 857 ( 5th C i r . 1989) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. C or r i ck, 298 U . S. 435, 440 ( 1936) ( appel l at e courthas j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne if d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n ). W e w i l l vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derand w i l l r emand t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor entryof an or derdi s m i s s i ng t he appe al . See G r eene v. U ni t ed St at es ( I n r e Souza) , 795 F .2 d 8 5 5 , 8 5 8 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ).